Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[nevin]

From here:


Well here is the thing, did Kwan have a point? Sure people might say "let us have fun" but I suspect that to Asian and Muslim characters, seeing their culture reduced to a theme-park version would be turned off for understandable reasons.

Off course:





Well here's the thing, they are playing with the idea that all Asian cultures are interchangeable. Korean, Chinese, and Japanese cultures are all mixed together and considering their history with each other, is something they wouldn't like. Now saying "western middle ages" is disingenuous since much of Fantasy is based on J.R.R Tolkien and his fictional version of BRITAIN in general. It's not based on a stereotype of Europe as a whole, Middle Ages or otherwise, and either way, this is simply going into tu quoque territory. And really, you are losing quite a bit of nuance and storytelling ideas by doing this.

But what are your thoughs...was it that bad back in ye olden times?

D&D is a theme park of white Midieval fantasy culture. Then they added oriental adventures, mazteca, al qaddim and lots of other theme parks.

 

[Ixal]

Not really interested in getting back into this topic but this turn in the conversation caught my attention.

I feel like there is a bit of a double standard here. When posters from group A say they are bothered by something or want people to speak up, then a lot of folks say we need to be quiet and listen. But then when a poster isn't bothered and says he doesn't need people to speak up (I don't think he was saying people should be silent, I think he was expressing skepticism towards people who are loud about this because it feels paternalistic to him: I could be wrong, not sure the poster's full range of views here), the poster is told he doesn't speak for 'all your people' (and that we must say something otherwise we are complicit). If you believe in listening to people from that group, shouldn't you also consider what this person has to say and not attack them?

I can see where he is coming from in some respects. My wife is from Thailand. Obviously if someone says something outrageously offensive, I need to say something. But I also need to read my wife and let her defend herself, and, probably more importantly, I have to consider if my reaction is going to make things worse for her (this has happened once before). Also my reactions are not always going to the the same as hers. There were things I thought would upset her, but she was totally fine with, or even appreciated (awkward things people said but they were done with good intentions, which to her is the most important thing). And the issue of treating a group of people like children, that is a real issue and it is insulting to people when that seems to be going on. It can also come off as sounding like "We know better than you".

This topic in general is sadly full with double standards, both about which voices speak for the majority and are valid and which are anecdotal evidence, but also which culture needs to be defended and which culture is ok to put in a blender.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think anyone has made a twenty-six-hour Youtube series complaining about this thread.

Neither has Asians Represent.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Neither has Asians Represent.

No one should have an issue with people that are passionate about something.

I think that the issue that some of us have is that people are repeatedly told, "Oh, you have to watch this in order to have an opinion." Of course, this happens to be 26 hours.

Then, if you do watch it (or try, in good faith, to watch significant portions of it because ... again, 26 hours) and you don't agree with it uncritically, you are dismissed- not on the basis of analyzing their points (good, bad, and incorrect), but only because you don't agree with everything that is in there.

This thread (and prior ones) should show that reasonable people can disagree with some of the issues raised. Of course, unreasonable people can too, but that's a different issue entirely.

 

[Umbran]

Not really interested in getting back into this topic but this turn in the conversation caught my attention.

I feel like there is a bit of a double standard here. When posters from group A say they are bothered by something or want people to speak up, then a lot of folks say we need to be quiet and listen.

I think this is will be difficult to discuss without an example - can you find a discussion in which that's actually happened on these boards?

There are times when allies need to speak up, and others where they need to listen and be educated. Those can both be mentioned in the same thread, without there being an inconsistency or double standard. Thus, we'd want to see a specific instance in which there's a mixed message.

... the poster is told he doesn't speak for 'all your people' (and that we must say something otherwise we are complicit). If you believe in listening to people from that group, shouldn't you also consider what this person has to say and not attack them?

None of the demographics we might discuss on this are monoliths. There will be disparate views within them all. So, if we are to listen and consider, it won't be a matter of hearing one voice, instantly agreeing and falling into step with that one. It is a process of listening to many, and weighing as best we can.

Noting that a single individual doesn't represent the whole isn't an attack.

I can see where he is coming from in some respects. My wife is from Thailand. Obviously if someone says something outrageously offensive, I need to say something. But I also need to read my wife and let her defend herself, and, probably more importantly, I have to consider if my reaction is going to make things worse for her (this has happened once before).

Yes. You are married to her, and that gives you a rather specific set of responsibilities with regards to her, above and beyond that of a general ally. You certainly need to give her voice, and her individual needs, priority.

I am not married to the poster up thread. I have a responsibility to listen to, and consider their words. But I have a responsibility to listen to many others with equal priority.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this is will be difficult to discuss without an example - can you find a discussion in which that's actually happened on these boards?

I don't think an example is required as it happens all the times in these discussions (the last time the discussion was had, it seemed to be a common enough occurrence). But I don't think it would be helpful to take specific instances of that and call out individual posters. Part of the problem I have with these discussions is how contentious they have become and how hostile we have become towards one another. So I wouldn't want to contribute further by singling out individual posters on this particular matter. That said, I think most people can remember things like this occurring. Maybe you saw the same posts and didn't agree, which is fine. We can have different opinions about posts. My point wasn't to rehash those particular sets of posts, it was to say I understand what the poster you were responding to is talking about.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Complex things are complex. Sometimes it might seem like somebody is contradicting themselves (and sometimes they are!) but dealing with messy issues is…messy.

Unfortunately, an easy and cheap rhetorical technique is to latch onto inconsistencies and try to use that to undermine the people who are trying to argue a position that acknowledges the messiness.

Which is unfortunate, because it means extreme and simplistic (and therefore unrealistic) positions are more defensible.

Having changed my position on many social/economic issues over the years, the one thing I’m most convinced of is that any position…on either side of the spectrum…that assumes these things are clear cut and easily reducible to simple truths, is just wrong.

 

[Bedrockgames]

None of the demographics we might discuss on this are monoliths. There will be disparate views within them all. So, if we are to listen and consider, it won't be a matter of hearing one voice, instantly agreeing and falling into step with that one. It is a process of listening to many, and weighing as best we can.

I agree 100% that groups are not monoliths and that truth isn't automatically granted based on which group people belong to. My point is when people like myself and others have made this kind of point in the past, the response has been something a long the lines of we have to listen to people based on their group identity. And I am just pointing out, that only seems to be the case so long as people belonging to that identity take position X on the issue rather than Y. But yes, I agree listen to many people. And I think part of what I am trying to also say is, in doing so, I hear a lot of people saying things more a long the lines of Jd Smith1 (or arguments in that sphere of thought).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes. You are married to her, and that gives you a rather specific set of responsibilities with regards to her, above and beyond that of a general ally. You certainly need to give her voice, and her individual needs, priority.

I am not married to the poster up thread. I have a responsibility to listen to, and consider their words. But I have a responsibility to listen to many others with equal priority.

The point about my wife, was just that my experience with her has given me a sense, based on things I have seen, of what JD is saying. Which is that being overly paternalistic is also a problem. And that sometimes there is this narrative of what is considered offensive or bad by a group and when you start talking to people within that group the reactions are actually a lot more mixed. Or there is a narrative that they can only be helped if white people step in and do something. I can see where he is coming from on this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Noting that a single individual doesn't represent the whole isn't an attack.

Attack might have been a strong word, and tone isn't really discernible in posts, so I may have misread your intentions here. My immediate response was the phrasing felt aggressive and like he was being shut down for taking a view that wasn't what you felt was the majority opinion. But I can see how I may have read tone in that which wasn't there.